Drunk drivers typically have a high rate of recidivism. Several schools of thought exist as to the “best” method of addressing those convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI). Some courts focus on rehabilitation of offenders, while others focus on punishing the driver by revoking or restricting driving privileges or assessing fines.
Some offenders, for example, are required to install an ignition interlock device (IID) in his or her personal vehicle before revoked driving privileges are restored. IIDs, such as breathalyzer ignition locks, require that the driver blow a breath sample into the IID before starting the vehicle. If the breath sample exceeds a pre-set, “acceptable” alcohol content, the vehicle will not start. However, nothing prevents the driver from having another party blow into the IID for them. Further, nothing prevents an offender from driving another vehicle that does not have an IID installed.
While incarceration is an effective tool to remove recidivist offenders from the road, it is rarely imposed because drunk drivers are not perceived “bad” people until they kill or injure someone else. Further, incarceration is expensive and the high cost is often passed on to taxpayers. Still further, incarceration is only a temporary fix—it does nothing to stop one from operating a motor vehicle once released from incarceration.